Legal Opinion

Stevens v. Pendleton

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 83 Mich. 342.

1Opinion of the CourtDurand, J.

This case has been in this Court once before, and the facts are so fully reported in Stevens v. Pendleton, 83 Mich. 342, that it is not necessary to do more than to state that on December 21, 1886,' the plaintiff and the defendant Pendleton entered into an agreement that, after the completion of certain hotel buildings, the plaintiff was to lease the same to Pendleton for 10 years at a certain rental, which was to be paid quarterly, on the first day of each quarter. The defendant Morton became suretjr that the defendant Pendleton would pay the rent as agreed upon. Afterwards, and on May 1,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Stevens v. PendletonMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Stevens v. PendletonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. P R Post Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Simon v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. J. M. Robinson, Norton & Co. v. Tuscaloosa MillsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API